Robert A. Blair

The appellants appealed an order striking their plea of equitable fraud.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that it was not 'plain and obvious' that a claim in equitable fraud could not succeed, citing relevant jurisprudence.

The order striking the plea was set aside, the defendants' motion was dismissed, and the appellants were permitted to amend their statement of claim.

The appellants appealed an order refusing to set aside a default judgment and refusing an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that sufficient facts were pleaded and admitted by default to establish that the appellants diverted trust funds under the Construction Lien Act.

This conduct fell within the exception to discharge under s. 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for misappropriation or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.

The appellant appealed the order of the lower court.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the order and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent in the amount of $2,500.

The appellant appealed a decision of the application judge who denied an adjournment, decided the application on the merits, granted a declaration, and awarded costs to the respondent as trustee.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge exercised his discretion reasonably and made no errors.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their medical malpractice claim.

The appeal turned on whether the respondent doctor met his disclosure obligations before the appellant elected to have heel surgery.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusion that the doctor provided sufficient information for informed consent was reasonably supported by the evidence.

The appellant, an Ontario lawyer, appealed a summary judgment recognizing and enforcing an Italian court judgment against him for professional misconduct in a failed joint venture.

The Court of Appeal applied the Van Breda test, finding that the tort was committed in Italy, which established a presumptive real and substantial connection.

The court also dismissed the appellant's arguments regarding a denial of natural justice and fraud on the foreign court, noting he had notice of the allegations but chose not to participate in the Italian proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, Piro and Montaldi, appealed a summary judgment finding them liable for knowingly assisting an Enbridge employee, Marinaccio, in breaching his fiduciary duty through a fraudulent invoicing scheme.

Over six years, Enbridge paid over $6.5 million for fake invoices submitted by entities controlled by the appellants, who then shared the proceeds with Marinaccio.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that Marinaccio owed a fiduciary duty, the appellants knowingly assisted in his dishonest conduct, and they were liable for bribery and unjust enrichment.

The court also upheld the calculation of damages and the award of compound interest.

The appellants appealed an order dealing with unpaid costs and security for costs.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the order was interlocutory and required leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that orders regarding unpaid costs and security for costs are interlocutory.

The appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant abandoned her appeal from the order of the Superior Court of Justice dated November 24, 2011.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

On the conviction appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by failing to correct an allegation of recent fabrication made by the Crown in closing, and that the Crown's cross-examination improperly invited the jury to draw an adverse inference from the appellant's failure to call a witness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the Crown's closing and cross-examination were proper, and noting the trial judge gave the standard instruction that the accused had no obligation to call evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence was within a reasonable range and not tainted by legal error.

The appellants abandoned their appeal from the order of Justice R. John Harper.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned and noted that the cross-claim had been withdrawn, with no costs awarded.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The respondent was awarded costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $10,429.55 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal court decision that upheld a trial conviction.

The appellant argued the trial judge provided insufficient reasons and erred in assessing credibility.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, finding the case raised no legal issues of significance to the general administration of justice and that the trial judge had given extensive, well-reasoned findings.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed following a jury trial, specifically challenging the probation order.

The Court of Appeal found that the probation was properly imposed for the purposes of rehabilitation and protection of the public, noting a lack of evidence that the appellant had taken steps towards rehabilitation to prevent reoffending.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant insurer sought indemnification from the respondent insurer under the loss transfer provisions of the Insurance Act for the costs of insurer-generated medical assessments.

The respondent conceded its insured was 100 per cent at fault but refused to indemnify the costs of the medical assessments, arguing they were not payments 'in relation to' statutory benefits paid.

The arbitrator and the Superior Court judge ruled in favour of the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the expense of insurer-generated medical assessments is not recoverable under s. 275(1) of the Insurance Act as payments 'in relation to such benefits paid'.

The appellant was acquitted at trial of income tax evasion after claiming her depression prevented her from filing returns.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge erred in admitting a doctor's letter as hearsay and relying on it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, agreeing with the appeal judge and further finding that the trial judge erred in law by relying on evidence he had previously ruled inadmissible to support the appellant's credibility.

The appellant appealed from a decision of the Superior Court of Justice granting the Crown's application for certiorari, which quashed a preliminary inquiry judge's order committing the appellant to stand trial for second degree murder and instead ordered him to stand trial for first degree murder.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded his jurisdiction by weighing evidence and choosing between competing inferences regarding planning and deliberation.

The Court found there was sufficient evidence, including a document showing a grudge and the circumstances of the knife attack, to support an inference of planning and deliberation.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for firearms and contraband offences.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding the vehicle search was reasonable and that he had knowledge of the contraband.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings regarding the reliability of the confidential informant's tip and the assessment of witness credibility.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was deemed fit given the appellant's prior record for similar offences.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board failed to make the least onerous and least restrictive disposition by not granting the hospital discretion to permit him to live in the community.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the disposition reasonable and supported by evidence that community living was not a viable option due to the appellant's obsession with living with his daughters.

The appellant was convicted of importing over 20 kilograms of marijuana after arriving at Pearson International Airport from Jamaica.

She appealed her conviction, arguing the trial judge improperly took judicial notice of common practices in drug importation cases to reject her credibility.

She also appealed her 18-month custodial sentence, seeking a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding the trial judge properly relied on his experience and common sense in assessing credibility, and that the custodial sentence was appropriate given the commercial quantity of drugs and the need for deterrence.